The authors of Leading in Uncertain and Complex Projects

Niklas Lohmann in a conversation with Lars Marmgren och Mats Ragnarsson, authors of the book  Leading in Uncertain and Complex Projects, which was awarded The Project management book of the year in 2015.


Interviewer:  This is an award-winning book. It’s the project management book of the year. And it’s also a book that addresses a really contemporary theme, uncertainty, and complexity. So when we talked before this pod, and you said you have made some really crucial observations before starting this work. So what were these observations?

Lars: What we have become aware of is a growing complexity in the way that big organizations are being managed. We see it in the more complex procedures, routines, and followup structures. And we see it in both small and big projects. And we can also see that all this is done with the best of intentions, trying to get more efficiency, trying to keep time schedules, trying to really deliver what the project is set to deliver, but we’ve also seen that these more and more complex structures and procedures doesn’t really give the result that management are looking for. And the funny thing is that it seems to be the contrary, that the more they try to define what should be done, and how it should be done, and by whom it should be done, the less efficient the organization becomes.

Interviewer: Interesting. Is this something, if we start with international/national, is this something you see at global scale?

Mats: You can say that, of course we wonder if we’re the only ones seeing this. Now, we have talked to a lot of people when doing this book, both managers and project managers in companies, and they say, as we do, that this has escalated since year 2000 approximately. There was a movement before, but since then, it’s escalated. And there were some studies on there. Boston Consulting did a study on this topic, and they found out that more and more development work is being illustrated as hard factory-like processes, and over the last 15 years, the amount of procedures, vertical layers, interface structures, coordination bodies, have increased from somewhere between 50 to 350%. And then they say but the demands on us from the outside have increased, but if you look at that in the study, that has increased somewhat like six times, but to cope with this, the internal routines and procedures have increased 35 times.

Interviewer: How do they define demands from the outside, is that a complex environment, or is it the shareholders, what is the outside driver for this?

Mats: The outside demands is like, if you work in a field, there are rules for that field. And of course, as society has evolved, there are more and more rules to take care of, both on the health side and security side, and also reporting. But the interesting thing is that to cope with it, you don’t just abide with those demands, you over-do it by six times. And that means, too, that managers spend a lot of time writing reports and going to coordination meetings instead of actually leading their personnel.

Lars: But I think also that the driving factors behind this is a need, or at least a perceived need, to be more effective. And, in the end, to make more profit, actually.

Mats: And that’s also sad thing about the study, is that if you look at that, they say that also productivity is disappointing in these companies. So if it would have any place, it would be the routine things, but even there, you lose ground when you do this.

Interviewer: It’s interesting, there are things like Lean, for example, and all these kind of models that supposedly should get you a lot of productivity. But we shouldn’t go into a particular model, but this is, the general trend is, add more steering, add more rules, add more procedures, and you would expect people to behave more correctly, whatever that is, and then you would expect the results to come out and be better, but they’re not.

Mats: Yeah, you can also see that these companies have quite high ambition levels of their objectives, so if you look some time back, companies and projects were led maybe by four indicators. Now, in a lot of companies, they can be 25, and some of these appear to be in conflict with each other.

Interviewer: Okay.

Mats: So the measurement system that we check is also very complex.

Interviewer: If you look at all this research, what do you see as the typical downsides for an organization that gets overly complex?

Lars: Well I think that the…in the book, we write about the complexity trap. And the simple fact is that the reason we have organizations is that we have a task to do that requires more than one person to do it, so we need to cooperate with each other. And when we do that, we become dependent on each other. And what we get is a sort of a complex system, which is the organization, where all the different parts are dependent on the results of the others, all the time. But the way that we tend to deal with this, and manage this, is as if the organization was not complex, but complicated instead, as if we could calculate what should be done, by whom, at a certain time, and therefore also manage to…it should be possible to manage it by controlling and steering, which is simply not true.

But this also leads us to a way of looking at the different parts of the organization, and trying to make each part as efficient as possible. And we do that also by measuring the parts, and so forth.

Mats: Sometimes even on individual level. So it’s quite common to have individual goals. And of course, then you get a lot of focus on the pieces of the puzzle, but not so much on the puzzle. And sometimes these are on top of what you do else, meaning you have to find things on top what you were supposed to do, and that you get some credits for in these personal objectives, and then it becomes really strange that what you get credit for is doing something else than what is actually needed.

Lars: Yep, that’s also true. So what we are stuck with is a way of looking at this when we are trying to get deeper and deeper into the organization, and control the smaller and smallest parts, as Mats said, even to the single individual, by having particular extremely well defined tasks, which we are measuring, and which we are also coupling to for example bonuses, etc. And when we do that, we break down the complex system into its parts, and then the interconnections and the feedback loops in the system are lost. And this is what we call the complexity trap. The more we try to control it, the less control we’re actually getting.

Interviewer: I actually, when you describe it that way, I get this kind of picture, you just get this huge heap of small parts. But actually you have deconstructed all the building blocks for the organization that actually work together. So you just get this huge pile of stuff, and you call that an organization, and you just measure parts of the pile, but not the factory as a cooperating unit, rather.

Mats: We’ve also seen examples that enforce this, because if you look at the major projects today, they’re usually done in cooperation between different parties. And that means that I contribute to your project, and you have others contributing, and we’ve seen also that this can lead to that you always try to get the other party to take the uncertainty, and have the problem, if it occurs. So it’s like we say, the ones showing more creativity are the lawyers. And that’s the really sad thing, so, when we should be targeting a good effect that all of us would benefit from, it’s more my part then.

Lars: And it’s, what Mats is describing is also something that we see internally within one organization, when we try and define the roles of individuals or groups in very, very good detail, to be sure that they know exactly what they are responsible for, and then we do that with all the other parts as well. But when we are thinking in that way, what we are doing is that we are creating borders between the parts of the organization, and that will eventually lead to people thinking that, ”As long as I do my part, then I’m okay.” And you forget about the totality, and the cooperation, which is the soul of an organization actually, and the reason we have organizations.

Interviewer: It’s a terrible scenario, where everybody stands alone, and then why are they there? You could ask yourself.

Lars: But at the same time, it’s an example of a very very strict logic that you’re following, with the really solid belief that this is the way to make things efficient. But it isn’t.

Mats: You can say that we see also that there is this dilemma, of course, we understand of course there is a need for planning, control, and predictability, but the other side of it is the need to be prepared for the unexpected and constantly make adjustments. And it seems like what’s being focused on is planning, control, and predictability. Even in a innovation rich environment, it’s hard to get this message across, how the work actually is, that it’s more a probing forward, when they want to see a plan from start. So in these situations, we see you can’t make a perfect plan from start. Because first of all, it’s not possible, because of the uncertainty, but second, if you try it, you will have to work so much front loading, so it will be very time consuming and extremely costly.

Lars: The interesting thing is that this sort of logic that we are trying to describe now, which ends in the complexity trap, we see also in projects. Which, the reason we set up projects is that this is not something that we have done exactly the same way before. There’s always something new, something different with the project. So there is an inherent uncertainty in every project, I would say. And then if we try to apply this control and command logic on it, we will find ourselves in situations where things happened that we could not foresee from the beginning, when we did our plan.

So we say, ”Why not turn that around, and accept the fact that there are uncertainty in projects?” What if, and if we have that assumption, how do we then organize? How do we then think about how to organize and work together?

Interviewer: One thing that also comes to mind when we’re discussing this is there are different mental models that are getting worked out in the way we operate, and what we’re actually seeing is that you have one mental model, and I would say that isn’t that the mental model that comes from how you watch people, or the view you have on humanity? If you have the view that people can actually do much more if they have a purpose in what they’re doing, or to cooperate, or if you have the mental model that you will actually be able to control a totally uncertain environment via more structure, that will be the way you address the project, and the way you organize the project.

Lars: But we like to support what you’re saying, because I think that there are…there’s one mental model about how organizations work, and there’s one mental model about what is a human being, and what makes a human being tick?  And in this sort of control and command type of organizations, that leads to the complexity trap, I would say that there is, at the bottom of that, a view on people that you have to control them, as you’re saying, because they are only looking for their own good. So if I want you to perform, I need to support your willingness to do that by either punishment, if you don’t succeed I will punish you, or with a large sum of money or something. But we don’t think people are like that. We think people are motivated by being successful together with other people, and doing something that they feel is meaningful, for example. That doesn’t say that we are not also interested in rewards. We are.

But it’s a combination of those different things. So it’s, I agree, it has a lot to do with how we think people work, and the way organizations work.

Mats: But we also think there’s a bit of misunderstanding that to treat this, the managers and leaders should just step back and watch people come up with the ideas to do them. Of course they need some kind of direction. So we have interviewed leaders that can treat uncertainty and complexity and live with that over and over. And it’s interesting to see the pattern they are describing.

Interviewer: Yeah, because this is of course…because you often get the push-back when you say, ”Let’s go from command and control to agile,” or whatever kind of empowering leadership method you’re trying to  persuade that organization should switch to. So you often get that kind of push-back. Okay, so should you just step back and let everybody do what they want?

Mats: I think what you’re picking up is a really good example also, because in the lean movement, or the agile movement, who actually started up pretty simple, principle driven, they have also started drilling down into details. So it feels like to make this better, we start detailing it more, and you’re becoming more and more fundamentalist of the alternative. And then the risk is that that will get into trap also. So I think it’s such a hard advice to stay on the surface. You don’t need that detail.

We’ve asked these people who have this rigorous methods for running projects, and the rigorous procedures, ”How come you have them?” And then they say, ”Yeah, it’s good for the new employees.” And then we ask them, and they say, ”No, we can’t use this, we have to talk to the experienced to figure out what is needed. Because this is a jungle.” So in some of these companies, experience has become knowing what of all the musts that actually you have to use. So that’s really interesting. And they have a tendency also to have the methods, and then they run some projects, and then they update them, and they don’t differentiate between what are musts and what are recommendations. So they tend to become more and more.

And in the end, you can’t find your way out of there.

Lars: I think the thing is, because as you said, we base our ideas on the belief that people want to do good things. And they are actually capable and willing of performing. But the thing is that what happens if they are not? There are always organizations where people do not perform the way you would like them to perform, for different reasons, whatever reason. So what do I do then? And that’s where the difference in leadership comes in. Do I then fall back into the control thing? Start measuring, and supporting to try people to just perform better, or do I try to understand why? And do I try to find a way of getting these people to understand their role in the whole system and how other people are dependent on what they are doing and so on? So you get into the way of looking at your role as a manager of getting people to undertand why is it important that you are doing your job, and how does that affect others if you are not? But it’s so easy in our traditional organizational world to fall back into measuring and stimulating by either punishment or…

Interviewer: Carrot or stick.

Lars: Carrot or stick. That’s what I was getting at. Carrot or stick.

Mats: And it’s also these leaders that we’ve interviewed, they’re all hard-working. You can say that the common trait is that they’re genuinely interested in their field, so they usually do things on the side to improve the field or understand it more. So we have [inaudible 00:18:04] from the fire and rescue service. He is also a leader, a trainer in the rescue school. And we have Magnus from handball who is very interested in handball and looks for ways to improve that.

But I was thinking in this aspect about Maria Forss who… she was the product manager of Plenadren, a project to treat Addison’s Disease. And she said in one of the interviews that she had a problem in the team, because some team members were not delivering what the others needed, and they were slipping. And it’s so tempting to go in there as a leader and try to sort it out, but what she did was to put them together. And then she discussed with the parties that did not get it what consequences is it for you when this doesn’t come. And then they started talking.

And then before the next iteration, they had the same sitting again, and discussed how do we do this together. So instead of coming in between as in kind of a border, you try to let them sort out the boundary. But you more facilitate that process.

Lars: I think that’s also something that we’ve seen in all the leaders that we have interviewed, that they have a way of being very much present in the work. But they don’t do that to control people. They do it because they are interested in the work, and that they are there to support when their support is needed. So it’s not…it’s primarily, I think, a state of mind that these people have as leaders, and to make it clear why it is so important that everybody takes his or her responsibility.

Interviewer: I think that’s really, it’s an interesting, when you said it, Lars, also off the Mats said what you said about Maria Forss, because she was at the dividing line there. She had a choice. She had this choice to go to the left side or the right side. Are you saying that the left side is she could have just gone to, and gone through the complexity, into more complexity, tried to control, set up consequences. But she went to the other side and she went to actually explaining the system, how this, and then she facilitated a conversation about how the system was working, and what people needed from each other, so the system was kept together as a unit.

Whereas, if she would have gone to the other side, she would have done separated things and said, ”This is the border for your activity, and this is.” So this is, I think, this is the situation where most managers find themselves. Should I invest time in talking about the whole system, the complexity? But bringing, taking on the complexity, and talking and facilitating understanding about the system? Or should I try to put up boundaries, again, and consequences.

Lars: I think that’s absolutely right. And it’s also something that we didn’t mention in the beginning. What at least I have seen over the last 20 years is that leaders, managers, have less and less time to spend with their people in organizations. And again, I think that, based on the idea that if they are just there, to be interested, and walk around, and talk to people, it is as if they are not producing something themselves. So it’s again this sort of belief in efficiency.

And then, you get the thing that okay, then we can have managers to participate in other meetings and stuff, so they are doing something. And that would work if you could manage by control systems. But you can’t.

Interviewer: Why do you think this kind…why do you think that people tend to believe that if you put something in the manual, then the manual will control by itself, and you can take the manager out?

Mats: So one aspect of the book is we try to go into that a bit, and see how it’s written, and we try to distinguish between instructions, on one hand, and guidelines, or processes for cooperation on the other hand. And what we can see is an instruction is written like, ”This is the way we want to do it, regardless of the lie of the land.” So you’re working with another person’s view or assumption, while a guideline, or a process for cooperation is more that you, depending on the situation, use this with flexibility. And sadly, a lot of this, what is written in organizations is written like instructions. And that means that you nail down the way to work, and the more you do that, of course, the less adaptable and flexible it become when environment changes. And it’s very hard to do in uncertain, complex projects.

So if you look at, for instance, systems for traffic, car traffic is very regulated by instructions, while boat traffic is regulated by procedures for cooperation. So on the sea, you more have contact with each other, you say hi to each other with the hands, because there is no rule what you’re allowed to do at sea, but when you meet, that’s regulated how to do that. And we can see that also car traffic is moving that way with the roundabouts, and so they have tried to figure out that we can actually solve it better than the red, yellow, and green system. So there is a movement in that, but you can clearly see a difference, and we believe that the majority of things in organization is actually a rule of cooperation, where you need to cooperate with others. So the situations where you can just do your actions like you mount a car engine, especially in a project, they are becoming less and less frequent.

Lars: So that might be the reason why people at sea wave with an open hand to each other. In the car, they clench their fist.

Interviewer: Yeah, you’re more like okay, this, ”I am correct.” I have the right to…

Lars: Yes, you are wrong.

Interviewer: …you are wrong.

Lars: I am right.

Interviewer: I have the right to do this.

Mats: So if I just continue a bit there, so if you look at for instance role descriptions, we advocate in projects, but of course if you write role descriptions like instructions, you can actually harm the cooperation. So it’s how you write them. And of course, it needs to state that you should support the others. So if you look at it, I have a kind of cool quote here from Örjan Larsson that’s the biggest project we have looked into. He was the product manager of the Citytunnel, a big tunnel project under Malmö city.

And he says, ”The primary task of my deputies and sub-project managers is to see to that the subcontractors have an easy ride as possible. I think that in many construction projects, the sub-project leader takes the role of being the traditional controller. We don’t spend time on that. We get under their skin. We get involved and we try to help.” So he has a lot of parties involved in this.

But he has this idea that we should all succeed together. Instead of this blame game. So you and me take the hit.

Interviewer: I think this is really an interesting point, because you have talked to a lot of leaders who have organizations that actually work. Would you say that this is an example of the mindset of these organizations?

Mats: No, I would not, actually. I would say that it’s leaders within organizations that do this repeatedly. They get known, because they do this, and they do it good. But I would say the organization at large is not really affected. So it’s more individual leaders that somehow have realized that this way of leading works better.

Interviewer: Yeah. By practice and experience.

Mats: Yeah. And I think they have shown it, so they don’t have to defend it. And in Örjan Larsson’s    case, it has spread to his sub-project managers, who now take on heavy assignments, but it’s more taught by not the leadership trainings, or the product management trainings, it’s more taught through coaching and mentoring from another party who knows this.

Lars: In also both Örjan Larsson with his tunnel project and Maria with her Plenadren project, they had the situation where they were actually on the top of the organization. They had their own organization were doing the project, which makes it possible for them also to work in a different way, the way that they believe in. This is much, much more difficult if you’re a middle manager somewhere in a big organization, where the top management put requirements on you to be in control, while you want to work in a different way, giving much more responsibility to your subordinates, for example. And then you really have to be successful, because as soon as there’s a mistake, there is a risk that you will be ordered to use the old style of management for your project.

Mats: But to answer your question, the closest we have seen is the fire and rescue service, where it’s inherent in the way they’re working. So there it has smitten the whole organization, and they work with life and death. And they realize that especially there, it doesn’t work with instructions. So there they have to have a lot of the power to act all the way out and that the individual firemen take the decisions. Because all the situations are so different, so if they were to teach how to treat a certain situation, they wouldn’t be educated before they go to pension. So they need to have a way to cooperate that they can use in each unique case, and combine their skill and their roles.

Interviewer: So if I am a manager with at least some degree of freedom, is there a way out? You have defined some patterns that are successful. So is there a way of operating that can be summarized. Is there a way out of this complexity trap?

Mats: Yeah, you can say that the leaders we have interviewed that do this repeatedly, they have the track record of doing this, and they say basically the same things. So it’s a rather clear pattern that we see.

Lars: That is true, but it’s also true, I think, that if you try to ask them, ”What is your management philosophy?” it’s not based on any well thought through theories. It’s in their blood, if you like. And it’s something they have learned by experience, this is the way I do it. And what we have been trying to do is to see what is the common denominators here? What is it that differs from traditional organizational theory, and ways of running projects. I think that what we found is that you don’t need to take away anything in ordinary project management.

Of course you need your clear goals, you need your time schedules, you need your work breakdown structures, and you need your organization, etc., etc. So all these tools are necessary, but it’s how you use them. And it is something that we have added here which we think is the big difference. Added to these normal tools, you also need something about rules of interaction, guidelines for how we are working together. And that, we think, is underdeveloped in almost any organization that we have met so far.

Mats: So they are good at laying out a good way to cooperate, but also getting that across, and make sure that everybody uses the same philosophy. And they spend a lot more time on this. So we have divided into two different areas, one we call thinking together, and one we call acting together. And those we work with in the book, and both are needed. And I would say especially in uncertain complex projects, the need to think together increases drastically.

Lars: And if you’re good at doing that, thinking together, it means that you actually create a common ground for those people working in the project, so they have a good understanding for, ”What is our goal? Where are we now? And how do we get to the goal?” And that takes a lot of talking. There’s a lot of talking needed for people in an organization to get the common view on that. But if you put time aside to let people talk about that, then the running of the project will be a lot more smooth. Because if something happens during the execution of the project, and I’m sitting there with a task, then I also have an understanding of what are the others doing right now. The thing that I have run into here, it could be a problem, but it could also be something that, this is easier than we thought.

So who else in the project needs to know about this? So it’s a lot about during the execution of the project, finding ways of getting the feedback loops between the different parts of the project and the individuals in the project actually working well, so that you have this…there is life in the project.

Interviewer: I think this is so, because when you say that, I can sense that, I mean, I’m working in projects myself, and I worked in lot of different organizations, and I think you can, sometimes you step into a room, or you’re part of a meeting where this happens, exactly as you’re describing it, and you feel that everybody knows what’s happening, and the team is working together. And sometimes you feel that it’s not happening, and there is a lot of stress, we shouldn’t be talking away time, and it’s not efficient, and why are we talking so much about this, and we should just get going, and the organization is really stressed out. So this seems like balancing on the razor’s edge. You need to be with the right people in the room, and you need to talk enough, and have space, and then go away and do stuff, and then come back to this kind of room. So what’s your advice? How do you get this going? How do they, all these smart people you have interviewed, how do they get this discussion going?

Mats: I can just give one hands-on experience then. Since we wrote the book, I get assignments on this and I was invited to chair a meeting in an uncertain complex project for a company, and I noticed that their stress level was really high, and they were worrying a lot, because nobody actually had spoken about it together. And so what I did was to chair, or to facilitate this session, and to make sure everybody had a say about their view on it, and not just the facts. And then, they heard that more people were also worried, then it was easier to stay there together. So when we left the session, we had exactly the same uncertainty, but they had agreed that they had it.

Before, when somebody tried to pick it up, another said, ”I don’t want to hear more of this.” And that’s one thing. And then we started nailing down how we cooperate in this uncertainty. Because of course, some moves we’re going to take is going to lead approximately right, some are not going to be, how do we work with that? It’s a probing. And it was really interesting to follow them, and it was at four weeks after we started making real good progress. But we needed that discussion.

So we have set up some guidelines, how to facilitate such a thinking session.

Lars: I think that’s a good example, because it really, it happens in the way that you said, that you have these meetings, you agree, hopefully, and you build a common ground, and then you go out and do your stuff, and then, the common picture of what is actually happening will deteriorate after time. So when you get back again after a month, or two months or whatever, you will sit there in the beginning, with slightly different views on where we are and how things are. And then you need to talk about it, to create this common ground again. And then you go out back and do your work. And this needs to happen over and over and over again during a long project.

Because, as we said in the beginning, there is always uncertainty. Things that you didn’t plan for happens, it always does.

Interviewer: And then you’re talking about what are the outside factors, what have we done as a team, why are we here, what’s the purpose, when are we going to be ready with what we have done, and that’s the starting point.

Mats: Yeah, maybe also, we’ve also seen that ”Where are we?” but not least, ”How come are we there?” So we have the same interpretation of the current situation. Because if we don’t do that, it’s very, very hard to get a collective decision that will lead to collective action. Then we would go out in several directions. And that we can see that some leaders are better at.

Lars: So you really probe enough to get a feeling for, ”Do we understand the situation in the same way, really?”

Mats: But then in acting together, I would say that there, it’s more making sure that we get this to work all the time in ordinary work, so that we really can’t have the meetings to do, then we have to foster this culture to take direct contacts, to figure out is there anybody I need to talk to to make my work? And then I do my work, and then I have to figure out who needs this information? So it’s getting all those loops to work all the time. And don’t fall into that you should be some kind of information trap in between them.

Interviewer: So it’s a conversation. You can actually say that it’s a conversation that is ongoing. It’s not information giving from a top-down perspective, but rather a horizontal conversation going within the team to coordinate the system.

Lars: I think that the person who has described this best is an old friend of ours, Gustav, who we worked together with at Ericsson many years ago. And when we were running a very big project, he came to me and he said, ”We lack a nervous system in the project.” And that was his way of describing that there are no interconnections here. The hand doesn’t know what the foot is doing right now, if you like. So we need to establish that contact. So that there’s a fresh and lively and functioning nervous system in the project.

Interviewer: So when you’re preaching this new gospel, are you encountering any misunderstandings when you’re talking about this new way to address uncertainty and complexity?

Mats: Yeah, I would say both the thing that we talk about, but also others when it comes to self-management, and you also talked about a new leadership theory, called inter…

Lars: Interdependent leadership, yes.

Mats: Yeah, we think that all of those maybe have the same source, but they can be misinterpreted, like, ”I’m the leader, now I can back off, and then everything is going to be sorted out.” And that is a really big misunderstanding, so you need to be really present, but you need to work with different things. And you had a good example, Lars.

Lars: I think one of the best examples I’ve seen or heard is Örjan Larsson, the guy with the City Tunnel, and who also worked with the Öresund Bridge for many years. And he described a situation in the beginning of the project, when they found some cracks in one of the pylons for the bridge. And the subcontractors, they did quite truly I think that it was still within the specifications, so he wanted to let it stay there. But Örjan took a really serious discussion with him, and through the questions that he asked to the entrepreneur, the subcontractor, this guy finally decided, okay, hmm. Maybe we should tear it down and do it again.

But, the subcontractor took the decision himself. It was not Örjan who said, ”You should do this.” It was his way of talking to him, discussing with him, talking about the type of culture and values that they needed to complete the whole bridge, and so forth. Through his questioning, the other guy took the decision. So he managed to influence, but not remove the responsibility for the guy and his organization that really had the responsibility. And this is really a piece of art, to be able to do that.

And then you know Örjan said also as a comment to the situation that if this had happened on the very last pylon that we did, I maybe have said, ”Okay, let’s leave it.” But because it was in the beginning, it was so important for him to set the standards, the quality standards for the project, so therefore he invested time to have this conversation. I think that’s a very good example of how you’re at the boundary and really actively working, but you don’t remove responsibility.

Interviewer: I think it’s a beautiful example, where people assume their responsibility and you’re not pushing people, it comes from within. So it’s an excellent example.

Mats: And I think it’s really interesting also that these big infrastructures that usually are a bit problematic, technically, and also the number of parties that Örjan has run a number of those now successfully. And that can’t be a coincidence.

Interviewer: So where do I get my hands on this book?

Mats: I think easiest through Wenell’s home page, so that’s or .com, and the book is called ”Leading in Uncertain and Complex Projects.”

Interviewer: Thank you so much.

Lars: Thank you.

Mats: Thanks.

Dela denna sida